Apple has spoken out against the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit filed against the company earlier this week, noting that the launch of its iBookstore actually broke "Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry."

Spokesman Tom Neumayr provided a comment to All things D on Friday in defense of Apple's actions.

"The DOJ’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true," he said. "The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry.

"Since then customers have benefited from eBooks that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we’ve allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore."

The Justice Department lodged its antitrust complaint against Apple and several book publishers on Wednesday after having first warned the companies of its intent to sue. The government agency alleges that Apple conspired with the publishers to enter an "agency model" for e-book sales and abandon Amazon's "wholesale model." The agency model allows the publishers to set their own prices for books, while the wholesale model let booksellers set prices.

Amazon established an early lead in the e-book market with its Kindle store, but it eventually became at odds with publishers because of its willingness to sell e-books at a loss. Publishing executives reportedly feared that the discounted books would have an impact on hardback pricing.

Court filings have revealed that Simon &amp; Schuster, Hachette and HarperCollins have settled with the agency. As such, Penguin and Macmillan are the only two publishers left in the suit. Macmillan CEO John Sargent said the DoJ's terms were "too onerous" to accept.

Legal experts have said the Justice Department is unlikely to win against Apple, noting that it has a better case against the publishers. According to one antitrust professor, the government will need to show Apple "had some kind of involvement in the original arrangement" to win against Apple.

Rather than letting the market sort itself out, Apple worked with publishers to make book pricing more expensive by denying Amazon the ability to sell books at the prices it wanted to.

Sounds antitrust practice to me. Anyone was free to see books cheaper than Amazon and gain market share. It's not like the publishers were loosing money! They got their price whatever Amazon sold a book for.

Personally I dislike spin.

The people who lost out from this whole shenanigans was us, the consumer. That is why this is being investigated.

Rather than letting the market sort itself out, Apple worked with publishers to make book pricing more expensive by denying Amazon the ability to sell books at the prices it wanted to.

Sounds antitrust practice to me. Anyone was free to see books cheaper than Amazon and gain market share. It's not like the publishers were loosing money! They got their price whatever Amazon sold a book for.

Personally I dislike spin.

The people who lost out from this whole shenanigans was us, the consumer. That is why this is being investigated.

I checked your posting history. You never have anything good to say about Apple.

Rather than letting the market sort itself out, Apple worked with publishers to make book pricing more expensive by denying Amazon the ability to sell books at the prices it wanted to.

Sounds antitrust practice to me. Anyone was free to see books cheaper than Amazon and gain market share. It's not like the publishers were loosing money! They got their price whatever Amazon sold a book for.

Personally I dislike spin.

The people who lost out from this whole shenanigans was us, the consumer. That is why this is being investigated.

Sounds like you need to add an extra layer of tinfoil to that hat of yours.

This was all about Amazon. Just check out their history before Apple got into the game and it's very apparent that Amazon was the bully.

Rather than letting the market sort itself out, Apple worked with publishers to make book pricing more expensive by denying Amazon the ability to sell books at the prices it wanted to.

Sounds antitrust practice to me. Anyone was free to see books cheaper than Amazon and gain market share. It's not like the publishers were loosing money! They got their price whatever Amazon sold a book for.

Personally I dislike spin.

The people who lost out from this whole shenanigans was us, the consumer. That is why this is being investigated.

Except Amazon was using its profitability from other markets to sell books below its cost, and it's strength as a traditional book publisher to give it the deal it wanted on ebooks (you do what we want or else all your books disappear from our site, including the paperbacks and hardbacks). Amazon is so significant in the traditional book selling market, that's a serious threat.

If the DoJ was also looking at Amazon's behavior, setting limits on its ability to sell below cost which keeps others from entering the market, I'd have more sympathy. But instead, it's "Bezos, you're set free - oh and we're making sure that the publishers all get different contract renewal dates so every negotiation is just you against them."

Selling below cost and bullying suppliers to give you a deal others can't get is a traditional means of building a monopoly. And once the monopoly is solidified, hold onto those memories of those low prices because that's all you'll get.

That's a pretty big accusation your presenting as fact without a single shred of evidence to back it up.

Maybe the DoJ should also investigate the same agency model Apple used for their App Store because those App Store apps are so expensive¡

I think you'll find there's basis for the 16 states making these claims and causing the government to investigate this. If there were no facts or evidence, do you think that some of the companies involved would have now already paid fines to settle this... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04...suit_for_cash/

Rather than letting the market sort itself out, Apple worked with publishers to make book pricing more expensive by denying Amazon the ability to sell books at the prices it wanted to.

Sounds antitrust practice to me. Anyone was free to see books cheaper than Amazon and gain market share. It's not like the publishers were loosing money! They got their price whatever Amazon sold a book for.

Personally I dislike spin.

The people who lost out from this whole shenanigans was us, the consumer. That is why this is being investigated.

I see -- I think. This reads like someone needs to brush up on the English before posting. You lost me at the loosing money.

... The people who lost out from this whole shenanigans was us, the consumer. ...

This kind of short-term thinking represents everything that's wrong with this country. Readers might be paying a few dollars more for books, but Amazon's monopoly position in the publishing industry was untenable. Allowing it to continue, which is what the DoJ action seeks to do, will eliminate competition in book retailing, and, as a result, will eventually result in Amazon controlling not only how much we pay for all books, traditional and e-books, but even what gets published. And $9.99 isn't going to last. Remember how overpriced Kindles were when there was no competition in the e-reader market. That's where e-book prices will eventually go if the DoJ succeeds in their effort to install Amazon as a government sanctioned monopoly of the publishing industry, end-to-end.

Rather than letting the market sort itself out, Apple worked with publishers to make book pricing more expensive by denying Amazon the ability to sell books at the prices it wanted to.

Sounds antitrust practice to me. Anyone was free to see books cheaper than Amazon and gain market share. It's not like the publishers were loosing money! They got their price whatever Amazon sold a book for.

Personally I dislike spin.

The people who lost out from this whole shenanigans was us, the consumer. That is why this is being investigated.

If amazon sell books at a loss and other companies cant compete then long term there will one player selling ebooks...i.e Amazon..so amazon wins not the book industry it will in fact leave no industry.

If on top of that ebooks are so cheap that people dont buy real books then the book publishers will lose...

The book publishers need to make a profit protect there interest just like amazon and apple do.

This kind of short-term thinking represents everything that's wrong with this country. Readers might be paying a few dollars more for books, but Amazon's monopoly position in the publishing industry was untenable. Allowing it to continue, which is what the DoJ action seeks to do, will eliminate competition in book retailing, and, as a result, will eventually result in Amazon controlling not only how much we pay for all books, traditional and e-books, but even what gets published. And $9.99 isn't going to last. Remember how overpriced Kindles were when there was no competition in the e-reader market. That's where e-book prices will eventually go if the DoJ succeeds in their effort to install Amazon as a government sanctioned monopoly of the publishing industry, end-to-end.

If amazon is achieving the monoply, and/or using said monopoly illegally, then they can do whatever they want to amazon.

None of this actually matters. This is all about the (alleged) illegal activities of publishers and apple. Pointing fingers at others saying 'yeah, but they were doing something bad too' is noit a valid defensive strategy.

Why not actually critique his comment, rather than making an oblique slur of the poster?

Because ZZZ is a troll, posting under a few aliases, even replying to his own posts, but he isn't getting much traction with the regular posters here because they are mostly on to him, so now he's going after the infrequent flyers, hoping to sucker them in. ZZZ, thy name is tekstud, or legion, as you prefer.

This kind of short-term thinking represents everything that's wrong with this country. Readers might be paying a few dollars more for books, but Amazon's monopoly position in the publishing industry was untenable. Allowing it to continue, which is what the DoJ action seeks to do, will eliminate competition in book retailing, and, as a result, will eventually result in Amazon controlling not only how much we pay for all books, traditional and e-books, but even what gets published. And $9.99 isn't going to last. Remember how overpriced Kindles were when there was no competition in the e-reader market. That's where e-book prices will eventually go if the DoJ succeeds in their effort to install Amazon as a government sanctioned monopoly of the publishing industry, end-to-end.

There are two paths forward there. One, that Amazon gains more than an 80% market share, in which case it is a monopoly itself and would be subject to investigation. Second, that if Amazon were to raise prices, that competition would lower prices and gain back market share.

The Internet has a different model that is much more self-regulating when it comes to pricing due to the simplicity of entering the market space. Trust me, if it was simple to compete with Comcast, I'd have 50 companies lined up offering cheaper internet access. Online it is simple to compete. So prices stay low unless people fix the rules.

I speak out of personal annoyance that book prices rose. I.e. I paid more for ebooks after the iPad was released. Not sure why I'm being attacked for thinking I got a bad deal out of this mess.

I think you'll find there's basis for the 16 states making these claims and causing the government to investigate this. If there were no facts or evidence, do you think that some of the companies involved would have now already paid fines to settle this... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04...suit_for_cash/

1) So being sued is now proof of guilt. Awesome logic¡

2) 3 publishers settled, but that doesn't mean they are guilty, it means they felt it was cheaper to go that route. let's not forget that Apple et al. did not settle, but because 1 or more did in your mind all of them plus Apple were in a secret meeting? Again, where is your proof?

3) Now lets assume for a second the publishers that did settle are actually guilty does that mean Apple or other publishers are guilty of colluding, too, or are you suggesting that Apple is guilty for creating an agency model? I guess that means sporting good stores are guilty of robbing banks simply because they sell ski masks.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I think you'll find there's basis for the 16 states making these claims and causing the government to investigate this. If there were no facts or evidence, do you think that some of the companies involved would have now already paid fines to settle this... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04...suit_for_cash/

Since when does one party settling mean that another party is guilty? If you actually sat down to think about things you could come up with all sorts of possibilities.

It's already well known fact that the publishers met by themselves without Apple present. The three publishers who settled could have been the very first to meet, and so would be considered the ring leaders who then brought the other publishers and Apple in. Or there could be more evidence against them.

Another way to look at it is this: Two of the publishers and Apple are going to fight the DoJ. Doesn't that at least make you wonder what evidence they have and why they would choose to proclaim innocence and fight? Do you think they're stupid? Do you think their lawyers are stupid? I'd love to hear your reason as to why they decided to fight, considering you seem to "know" they're guilty.

The Internet has a different model that is much more self-regulating when it comes to pricing due to the simplicity of entering the market space. Trust me, if it was simple to compete with Comcast, I'd have 50 companies lined up offering cheaper internet access. Online it is simple to compete. So prices stay low unless people fix the rules.

LOLWUT?

You think you could compete with Amazon and others online? Do you have the buying power Amazon does to negotiate the lowest possible prices from your suppliers? Do you have numerous revenue streams that would allow you to take a loss in one area and make it up in another?

Your post sounds like one of those "I make $10,000 a month on the Internet and you can to if you buy my book" ads.

Since when does one party settling mean that another party is guilty? If you actually sat down to think about things you could come up with all sorts of possibilities.

It's already well known fact that the publishers met by themselves without Apple present. The three publishers who settled could have been the very first to meet, and so would be considered the ring leaders who then brought the other publishers and Apple in. Or there could be more evidence against them.

Another way to look at it is this: Two of the publishers and Apple are going to fight the DoJ. Doesn't that at least make you wonder what evidence they have and why they would choose to proclaim innocence and fight? Do you think they're stupid? Do you think their lawyers are stupid? I'd love to hear your reason as to why they decided to fight, considering you seem to "know" they're guilty.

Stop making sense, you'll confuse people.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

If amazon is achieving the monoply, and/or using said monopoly illegally, then they can do whatever they want to amazon.

None of this actually matters. This is all about the (alleged) illegal activities of publishers and apple. Pointing fingers at others saying 'yeah, but they were doing something bad too' is noit a valid defensive strategy.

It's not about, "they were doing something bad too."

It's about making a choice: Allow Amazon to kill off all competition in bookselling, which effectively gives them control of the publishers, and who and what gets published and who publishes it, if they are the only place you can sell books. Or, allow a healthy, vibrant publishing and bookselling industry to flourish, so that consumer can choose where to buy books and what they want to read.

The Amazon scenario that the DoJ is myopically supporting, will result in a future with fewer books, fewer voices, fewer viepoints available at higher cost. The agency model leads to a future were the publishing industry thrives and grows and varied and independent voices are heard, and, in the end, lower prices for consumers than you'll get when Amazon controls everything. We've been headed down the Amazon path for a number of years now and the results so far are pretty bleak. How many publishers have to go out of business, merge, or be acquired, before we wake up and see how Amazon is destroying the publishing industry?

So, choose. Choose free speech or choose Amazon controlled speech. But, if we make the wrong choice now, we'll pay for it for a very long time.

Rather than letting the market sort itself out, Apple worked with publishers to make book pricing more expensive by denying Amazon the ability to sell books at the prices it wanted to.

Sounds antitrust practice to me. Anyone was free to see books cheaper than Amazon and gain market share. It's not like the publishers were loosing money! They got their price whatever Amazon sold a book for.

Personally I dislike spin.

The people who lost out from this whole shenanigans was us, the consumer. That is why this is being investigated.

As I understand it, Apple told the publishers that they would pay the publisher of a book 70% of the proceeds from sale of the book, based on the price each publisher set for a book. Apple does not set the actual price. Publishers do. The only pricing requirement was that the price in iBookstore be equal to the lowest price that publishers set for other outlets. Hardly monopolistic practices.

As for your assertion that Amazon was denied the ability to sell at a lower price, that is not true. Amazon frequently sells books below publisher pricing, even at a loss at times. Selling below publisher pricing is how they built their business. Nothing in the Apple pricing model prevents Amazon from continuing to do that.

Rather than letting the market sort itself out, Apple worked with publishers to make book pricing more expensive by denying Amazon the ability to sell books at the prices it wanted to.

Sounds antitrust practice to me. Anyone was free to see books cheaper than Amazon and gain market share. It's not like the publishers were loosing money! They got their price whatever Amazon sold a book for.

Personally I dislike spin.

The people who lost out from this whole shenanigans was us, the consumer. That is why this is being investigated.

When it comes to legal stuff, I'm ignorant, I'm not a lawyer. I study Political Science, Marketing, and Film. But to me and my ignorance, it seems like publishers have the right to set prices for their content. We can blame publishers for getting the prices raised and Apple for holding their hands along the way, but I don't think that it's in any way illegal to dictate the terms of distributing content that you own.

And anyway, it's not like the publishers changed Amazon's pricing. They got Amazon to change its pricing. There's a difference. Amazon agreed to contracts, right? Amazon didn't have to, it could have just not had content to sell. But Amazon obviously felt that selling content at increased prices was better than sticking to its guns. Amazon caved. If Amazon didn't, and the publishers ended up making less money with Apple's business than they did with Amazon's, the publishers would have come crawling back.

"You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator but, ya know, those things are probably not going to be pleasing to the user."

There are two paths forward there. One, that Amazon gains more than an 80% market share, in which case it is a monopoly itself and would be subject to investigation. Second, that if Amazon were to raise prices, that competition would lower prices and gain back market share.

At the point were Amazon will raise prices, there won't be any competition. If the DoJ prevails on Amazon's behalf, it won't be that long

Quote:

I speak out of personal annoyance that book prices rose. I.e. I paid more for ebooks after the iPad was released. Not sure why I'm being attacked for thinking I got a bad deal out of this mess.

Again, this is short-sighted and self-centered thought. You know, books aren't just about readers buying them, there are also these people called writers who create them. On the path Amazon is taking the publishing industry, fewer and fewer of these writers, you know, the people who write the books, will be around to actually create something for you to buy. So not only will Amazon jack up prices on you once they've eliminated all competition, there also won't be much to choose from and all the books will begin to seem surprisingly similar.

As I understand it, Apple told the publishers that they would pay the publisher of a book 70% of the proceeds from sale of the book, based on the price each publisher set for a book. Apple does not set the actual price. Publishers do. The only pricing requirement was that the price in iBookstore be equal to the lowest price that publishers set for other outlets. Hardly monopolistic practices.

As for your assertion that Amazon was denied the ability to sell at a lower price, that is not true. Amazon frequently sells books below publisher pricing, even at a loss at times. Selling below publisher pricing is how they built their business. Nothing in the Apple pricing model prevents Amazon from continuing to do that.

That was the problem though. By the publishers changing the model to 'set prices for other outlets' (i.e. define the actual selling price), that prevented Amazon from selling below the publishers price. So prices went up.

You know, books aren't just about readers buying them, there are also these people called writers who create them. On the path Amazon is taking the publishing industry, fewer and fewer of these writers, you know, the people who write the books, will be around to actually create something for you to buy. So not only will Amazon jack up prices on you once they've eliminated all competition, there also won't be much to choose from and all the books will begin to seem surprisingly similar.

Amazon and Apple have both interestingly taken a similar path recently, which the publishers must be somewhat concerned about. That is that both now enable the writers themselves to self-publish through iBooks or the Amazon book store. This should give us more choice as it is easier for a writer to publish.

This has pros and cons to writers and consumers, but a clear looser is the publisher. Perhaps both companies thanks for events that have annoyed or tarnished them.

But to me and my ignorance, it seems like publishers have the right to set prices for their content. We can blame publishers for getting the prices raised and Apple for holding their hands along the way, but I don't think that it's in any way illegal to dictate the terms of distributing content that you own.

Of course publishers can set their prices to anything. That is normal practice, and typically involves an internal balancing act of rising costs/competitive pricing.

What is illegal is colluding. Which is what the publishers reportedly did. That removes the competitive part of the equation.

What is illegal is colluding. Which is what the publishers reportedly did.

So you've moved your accusation from "Apple was obvious colluding because 3 publishers settled" to "only the publishers were colluding" with the use of the reportedly qualifier. You honestly can't see how your accusal tone has done a 180 since your first post?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Of course publishers can set their prices to anything. That is normal practice, and typically involves an internal balancing act of rising costs/competitive pricing.

What is illegal is colluding. Which is what the publishers reportedly did. That removes the competitive part of the equation.

Okay, colluding may be illegal. Until the DoJ can prove colluding happened and win, I'm not so sure we can say without a doubt that there was colluding. And even if there wasI'm not saying there wasI don't think what the publishers did should be illegal. I mean, look, they were pissed off at Amazon. If they did get together in an underground lair and agreed on a model that made them happy, and Amazon signed their contracts agreeing to the terms, I personally don't see a whole lot of wrongdoing.

And what does the DoJ want to get out of this? If they win they can certainly fine the publishers, but can they actually negotiate the terms for the publishers' content? It's a genuine question actually, I don't know.

"You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator but, ya know, those things are probably not going to be pleasing to the user."

Amazon and Apple have both interestingly taken a similar path recently, which the publishers must be somewhat concerned about. That is that both now enable the writers themselves to self-publish through iBooks or the Amazon book store. This should give us more choice as it is easier for a writer to publish.

This has pros and cons to writers and consumers, but a clear looser is the publisher. Perhaps both companies thanks for events that have annoyed or tarnished them.

Unless you are Steven King, self publishing isn't going to get you anywhere and no audience will find you without the promotion that publishers do. That's why a healthy and diverse publishing industry is essential. It's on life support now, and if the DoJ succeeds, Amazon will be pulling the plug in a few years, and we'll all be the poorer for it.

Except Amazon was using its profitability from other markets to sell books below its cost, and it's strength as a traditional book publisher to give it the deal it wanted on ebooks (you do what we want or else all your books disappear from our site, including the paperbacks and hardbacks). Amazon is so significant in the traditional book selling market, that's a serious threat.

If the DoJ was also looking at Amazon's behavior, setting limits on its ability to sell below cost which keeps others from entering the market, I'd have more sympathy. But instead, it's "Bezos, you're set free - oh and we're making sure that the publishers all get different contract renewal dates so every negotiation is just you against them."

Selling below cost and bullying suppliers to give you a deal others can't get is a traditional means of building a monopoly. And once the monopoly is solidified, hold onto those memories of those low prices because that's all you'll get.

Bezos will always get away scot-free. He's got some sort of aura around him where he can do no wrong. I'm rather certain he has some powerful backers behind his company and they're willing to go to bat for him in Washington. That's one of the reasons why his company can have poor earnings quarters and continue to hold a P/E of around 150. The company is definitely being propped up by very wealthy investors if they can convince the DOJ to ignore the Amazon 95% monopoly and go after Apple with an insignificant e-book market share. Amazon undercutting everyone's prices seems to be a fair business practice all of a sudden.

At first I thought it was a typo but since you did it again I know it's not.

You're complaining that Apple's iPad and their alleged collisional actions now make you pay more for your ebooks. One would think that you, being such an avid reader, would know how to spell the words losing and loser.

Wow.

I won't talk for any others on this forum but, sorry, your misspelling of 3rd grade-level words makes me take your posts quite a bit less seriously.

At first I thought it was a typo but since you did it again I know it's not.

You're complaining that Apple's iPad and their alleged collisional actions now make you pay more for your ebooks. One would think that you, being such an avid reader, would know how to spell the words losing and loser.

Wow.

I won't talk for any others on this forum but, sorry, your misspelling of 3rd grade-level words makes me take your posts quite a bit less seriously.

It's always sad when people have to resort to personal attacks rather than actually commenting on the substance at hand.

My original post also used 'see' instead of 'sell', just to add to my list of typos. I've been waiting for that to be pointed out too.

That was the problem though. By the publishers changing the model to 'set prices for other outlets' (i.e. define the actual selling price), that prevented Amazon from selling below the publishers price. So prices went up.

Bull. That is simply not true. Apple never set a price. Apple does not appear to be guilty of price setting. Publishers. Yes. Apple. No. Apple cannot tell anyone what price to charge. They are large enough to demand best pricing from a publisher but the publisher is still free to set that price.

It's always sad when people have to resort to personal attacks rather than actually commenting on the substance at hand.

My original post also used 'see' instead of 'sell', just to add to my list of typos. I've been waiting for that to be pointed out too.

I'm not attacking you personally and I'm not the only one that pointed it out. Everyone makes typos and those I let slide if they happen once, as in that case. But two different forms of the same word? C'mon, dude. Using proper grammar and spelling goes a long way when it comes to taking one's posts seriously. Not only that, Solip has also pointed out how you're changing your argument with each post.

We take Apple seriously here so if you're going to come here and make waves, back up your accusations with a link or two, and.......speak intelligently.

If amazon sell books at a loss and other companies cant compete then long term there will one player selling ebooks...i.e Amazon..so amazon wins not the book industry it will in fact leave no industry.

If on top of that ebooks are so cheap that people dont buy real books then the book publishers will lose...

The book publishers need to make a profit protect there interest just like amazon and apple do.

Amazon is also looking to become a book publisher.

But Amazon had 90% of market before and ebooks were cheaper. The Apple deal with publishers caused the prices to rise. I'm still unsure of how that was good for customers. Apple broke up the monopoly but it only benefited Apple and publishers like HarperCollins

Bull. That is simply not true. Apple never set a price. Apple does not appear to be guilty of price setting. Publishers. Yes. Apple. No. Apple cannot tell anyone what price to charge. They are large enough to demand best pricing from a publisher but the publisher is still free to set that price.

Apple told the publishers they could set the price of ebooks at whatever they wanted but only if the publishers agreed to force Amazon to raise their prices as well. Apple didn't want to have to compete with Amazon on price. That's the conspiracy they are guilty of.